On 11/27/2017 10:30 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
JFS:
In 1911, Peirce clarified the issues by using two distinct terms:
'the universe' and 'a sheet of paper'. The sheet is no longer
identified with the universe, and there is no reason why one
couldn't or shouldn't shade a blank area of a sheet.
There is a difference between *being* a universe of discourse
and *representing* a universe of discourse...
I agree.
In the Lowell lectures, Peirce defined the Sheet of Assertion
as the representation of a universe that was constructed during
a discourse between Graphist and Grapheus.
But that is just one of many ways of using logic. In 1911,
he wrote about "whatever universe" and "the whole sheet":
Every word makes an assertion. Thus ——man means "There is a man"
in whatever universe the whole sheet refers to.
This is less restrictive than the definition in the Lowell lectures.
For example, it would allow a logician to use a sheet of paper to
write a proof by contradiction. In that case, there would be no
universe about which the statements on the paper could be true.
John
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
